peripeteia

This cursory sketch is in relation to your previous thread dealing with postmodernism..

It is apparent that the pursuit of postmodernism, not only takes the form of an incorporation of terms similar to Quinian “web of belief,” where ideas such as contextualism, decentering, absence, difference[or differance from Derrida], performativity, eclecticism etc. are taken as indubitably interrelated, but also finds expression in the nonfoundational tendencies of its enterprise. In fact, it is nonfoundationalism, which undergirds and makes the postmodern inclination intelligible. Nonfoundational criticism is critical of the epistemological assumptions that there are “foundations” for knowledge, i.e., noninferential principles whose certainty and stability ground other epistemic claims. Nonfoundational criticism offers no alternative to epistemology but predicates the “nots” of knowledge and understanding. First, knowledge does not rest on principles immediately experienced as though they are sui generis. Second, principles are not universal truths, and third, they are not disconnected from their context. The basic premise of nonfoundationalism is that no privileged assumption is able to sufficiently ground knowledge. For nonfoundationalists the distortions wrought by modern foundationalism is evident in its history. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) sought for a ground (first principles) to establish knowledge. His Cartesian project of duality lead to what nonfoundationalists call the “Cartesian anxiety.” Than the British empiricists – Locke and Hume – followed this stance and argued that sense experience and not ideas grounded philosophical inquiry. This was then followed by the German idealists – Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel – who inverted the argument and stated that the “givenness” of the minds ideas; their a prior nature, was basic and constituted knowledge .

Although there arose certain nonfoundational predispossions in pragmatism – James and Peirce – and linguistics, substantial changes occurred only after Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). Wittgenstein took language away from the modern emphasis on meaning and correspondence or reference, and postulated “language-games,” where language involves the play of context and convention. Hence their arbitrariness is a product of culture and practicality. Quine following Wittgenstein states “to be is to be the value of a variable,” i.e., meaning is provincial and reference occurs only within a system. These two ideas, of language acting as games and beliefs structured as webs, has profound implications for the way philosophy is done.

Since philosophy provides a context for theological reflection, these developments did not go unnoticed by theologians. The interpretive possibilities of nonfoundationalism allowed theologians to re-evaluate and reconfigure the theological task. They began understanding that modern theology was a 'mediating theology' insofar as their self-conception as theologians was a commitment to methodologically plead the case for God, revelation, and tradition, as it has been ecclesially recognized upon the court of modernity. It is precisely for this reason that theology considers itself apologetical. Nonfoundational theologians characterize this apologetical approach as dysfunctional; in their judgement post-Enlightenment theology has corrupted the proper conduct of theology.

Im sure this view is contentious by most christians but nevertheless i put it out there..I enjoyed your explications of the previous thread on postmodernism but sadly its obvious none have actually read the literature of postmodernism:like Jameson,Seidman,Taylor,Lyotard,Harvey,Foucault etc etc.These above are sadly only a few,,, believe me on this..Theres also secondary material but they are more nuanced[poststructuralsim, critical theory, postcolonialism, and sheeesh the huge literature in literary criticism]..OkOk i'll stop but i think you get the gist of my intention..I merely wanted to set things straight..Enjoy..

Koyaanisqatsi

Agreed. Problem is, there is no "proper conduct of theology" in any coherent sense. Declaring and/or affirming blind faith (or presuppositionalism) as a foundation is, ultimately, invalid.

Clutch

Were Augustine and Aquinas post-Enlightenment? Notice that precisely zero of the contemporary arguments for the existence of a god are modern in origin; all are identical to or slight variants of arguments 800-1600 years old. Apologetics have always been endemic to Christianity, and natural theology is much, much older than the name itself.

peripeteia

Hello Clutch!!
You are completely right..But I cant help mentioning an implicit assumption permeating your response and one I must level towards our sorry attempts of philosophizing; especially as its done in academic philosophy departments..

Remember in your readings especially if your familiar with critical theory {the debates between David C. Hoy and Thomas McCarthy and the more famous debates between Habermas and Gadamer to name a few} the question was manifestly posed,"What makes a theory 'critical'?To be critical must one have a theory"? And then there’s the more often quoted and deconstructed stand that says"There's a marked tendency for 'postmetaphysical' thinkers to engage in a metaphysics of a negative sort, basically to remain at the level of metaphysics in seeking to displace and disrupt it. When that happens one set of hypostatizations[ the philosophical equivalent of reificatin in the social sciences] is traded in for another;the one for the many, the universal for the particular, identity for difference, reason for the other of reason, the structures of thought for the infrastructures of thought, the logical essences of language for the heterological essences of language and so on"..Never assume that you have to provide another foundationalism just because you’re deconstructing a preexistent one. I wont go into the essentials of this because it well require a thesis in itself and frankly im not in the mood but theres so much literature out there in this that if you wish i can reference some of them..But a good book is by Mark C. Taylor called 'Erring'.Hehe this is even theological so the more fundamentalist anachronisms out there wont feel to profaned in touching it..Ok enough said.

But i think you get it so far..Whether you are 'desacralizing' religion or deconstructiing the archaic 'metaphysics of presence' inherited from the past[in philosophy] the issues are still the same "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent"

peripeteia

Hi Koyaanisqatsi…

You stated:” Problem is, there is no "proper conduct of theology" in any coherent sense. Declaring and/or affirming blind faith (or presuppositionalism) as a foundation is, ultimately, invalid”.

I can’t disagree more..The point is[in both philosophy and theology] to view the big pictures and grand narratives as ongoing accomplishments..They are never finished but have to be constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed in ever-changing circumstances.

The basics of postmodernism’s critique of theology see it as an imaginative construction which is both theocentric and historically relative..This means that postmodernism views theology as a will to power which reified human anthropomorphism in order to reconstruct God into its own image[social or historical or even personal depending on its authors]. The politics, ideologies, and social history of that particular time is embedded in its beliefs --good examples can be found in Frend,Brown,Meek,and Stevenson..Thus when the moderns, talk about God or even of revelation, they are using their own definitions relative to their particular perspective and not unindubitable nonreferencials immediately and absolutely given..


Sheesh we can t even use the same definitions when we talk about biblical principles..Quine makes the distinction between ontic[particular existence] and ontological[general/universal existence]. Our human freedom which denotes frailty and fallibility delimits that what is pristinely revealed{gifted] by God can somehow be adulterated by our ontic natures. Take for example the argument I began with about the variants in creeds according to not merely divergent religions but to different denominations within the same religion[I believe you know what im talking about]..If you want to intuitively select between these creeds as to which are valid and which are heretical, then you must be willing to provide a justification for your decision and one which goes outside biblical hermeneutics..Look iv heard them all…Some try to go back to ancient sources, others try to use linguistics, or semiotics ,or historiography or the various social sciences..Look at the insanity that permeates the sub-discipline of the Historical Jesus..



Koyaanisqatsi, I appreciate your comment but next time be so kind and substantiate your statement..

Thanks..